All:
About two weeks ago I posted on the subject of some proposed changes
in The Minneapolis Plan and zoning ordinances. I couldn't figure out
what was happening with the changes and why. I've waited for a week
since the meeting to think about things. I thought I'd now post some
reflections.
One of my questions was that a page of the city's website relating
to the then upcoming meeting included a map of my neighborhood and my
own lot was marked in orange. I ask about why my lot was marked because
I couldn't figure out the connection between the changes and that map.
The answer is that, apparently, the connection between the ordinance and
the map is: none at all. Someone else at the hearing suggested that the
information provided on the website seemed to be the "dump a truckload
of information and let them sort through it" school of disclosure. The
inclusion of a map that had nothing to do with the matter, would seem to
give some credence to that view. The reference to the map has
subsequently disappeared from the city's web page.
The ordinance change itself defines "affordable housing." It is
defined as housing affordable to households whose income does not exceed
50% if the MMI and says that "housing must remain affordable
continuously for a period of not less than 15 years to qualify as
affordable housing."
I can think of several problems with that language, but the most
important is if housing does NOT remain within the definition for 15
years, then what happens? The situation is that the city will have
authorized ultra-dense housing on the parcel because part of the housing
is "affordable." So, if the unit is converted into market-rate, does
the owner have to tear down the portion of the housing that enabled the
ultra-dense housing to start with. I doubt it. And there is no penalty
for the violation of the 15-year requirement. Does that mean that a
developer could build something not complying with the law and then say,
"Sorry about that." (Hint: What happened to some of the city
requirements on the construction of block E?)
The changes to TMP seem to be in the nature of support for God,
motherhood, and apple pie. But it's so general that it doesn't really
give a clue to what's contemplated. The language that we need
affordable housing can't be argued about.
The zoning ordinance changes don't seem to directly fit with the
changes to TMP. In fact, I don't think that TMP had to be amended to
even consider the zoning changes. Again, it seems like a lot of paper
hiding the important changes in the zoning laws.
The zoning change applies to the whole city of Minneapolis. What it
does is allow more people to be housed in smaller living spaces as long
as part of the living spaces meet the definition of affordable. The
minimum is five units. So, if you build a five-unit development (or
subdivide an existing structure into five units) and one of them is
affordable, then the units can be 20% smaller that otherwise permitted
or built on lots that are 30% narrower than otherwise permitted. (I am
still not sure that really does anything because a later section of the
zoning ordinance doesn't seem to list any ratio applicable to
residential properties.) The parcel would have to be zoned for
multiple-family dwellings (or have its zoning changed to allow
multiple-family dwellings.
But five units is the minimum. If you have, say, 200 units and 40
are affordable, then you can jam all of them into 20% smaller units and
30% narrower space. With that number of units, it starts looking like
dinky units squeezed into even dinkier lots. Frankly, it doesn't sound
like a desirable living for either affordable or market-rate residents.
We need affordable housing but is that a workable solution. Maybe
something else is going on but I don't know what it is.
There are also other bonuses already built in to the existing zoning
law. But the draft ordinance says nothing about whether the bonuses are
or are not stackable. So, for example, if you build a development with
20% affordable housing AND underground parking, are you then entitled to
units that are 40% smaller on 60% narrower lots? I hesitate to call
that absurd when the purpose of the bonuses is to make it economically
viable for developers to build homes with each and all of the features
that are rewarded. It would seem to make it very economical for
developers to have people living in packing crates that are stacked very
high.
One last observation from seeing other neighborhoods submitting
comments on other projects. When you go down to city hall on such a
venture, stop by the library on your way. You'll need a good book to
read while you're waiting your turn anyway. But, be sure to check out
the book with Tom Wolfe's short story "Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers."
It will help explain what is going on in front of you while you wait.
Steve Cross
Prospect Park
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
